SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ALEX
LINGASA, JORGE
BI-AY, and “JOHN
DOE,” Accused, ELISEO
BI-AY, JR. y
SARINTAS alias “GIDEON,”
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 192187 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated: December 13, 2010 |
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Challenged in this appeal is the July
16, 2009 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the March 27, 2003 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental (RTC),
finding accused Eliseo Bi-ay, Jr. y Sarintas alias “Gideon” guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
On
That on or about the 26th day of December, 1996, in the
Municipality of Cauayan, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in company
of their other co-accused, whose true name is still unknown and herein
designated only as “JOHN DOE,” armed with a bolo, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, with
intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault, and hack one RODRIGO CLARO, thereby inflicting multiple fatal
hack wounds upon the body of the latter which caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When arraigned on
The respective positions of the parties were
succinctly recited in the subject decision of the CA as follows:
On
Rodrigo then went out of the house and while carrying the two (2) cups of
coffee, he noticed that his 10 year-old son, Baby Boy Claro, was following him.
He turned his back and told his son to stay behind. When he was about to
proceed, appellant Eliseo who was ahead of him, suddenly hacked him on the nape
which caused him to lose his balance and fall to the ground. Accused Alex
followed suit and stabbed Rodrigo at the back by thrusting a bladed instrument.
Accused Jorge also went towards Rodrigo and stabbed him.
Witnessing the vicious assault on his father, Baby Boy Claro ran and
shouted to his grandfather for help who then went out from his house with a
bolo. Within ten (10) meters away, Francisco saw appellant delivering hacking
blows on his son who was then lying on the ground face up, while accused Jorge
and Alex immediately withdrew and fled as Francisco nearly approached them.
Thereafter, appellant also ran away after all of them took turns in hacking the
victim.
By the time Francisco finally reached his bloodied son, the victim
already succumbed to the multiple stab wounds he sustained which caused his untimely
death.
After the incident, Dr. Lorna V. Transmontero, Municipal Health Officer
of Cauayan, Negros Occidental conducted an autopsy and yielded the following
post mortem findings:
1.
Hacked wound
at the forehead mid portion 3 cm. in diameter.
2.
Hacked wound
at the L side of the mouth 4 inches in diameter.
3.
Hacked wound
at the R side of the lower portion of the ear 4 inches in diameter.
4.
Hacked wound
at the L nipple upper portion 1 inch in diameter.
5.
Hacked wound
at the L side of the hypochondrium 1 inch in diameter.
6.
Hacked wound
at the R side of the R nipple upper portion 1 inch in diameter.
7.
Hacked wound
at the posterior portion of the neck 2 inches in diameter.
8. Hacked wound at the posterior
portion of the R upper arm 2 inches in diameter.
9. Hacked wound at the posterior
portion of the R lower arm 2 inches in diameter.
10. Hacked wound at the lower
portion of the R leg 2 inches in
diameter.
11. Hacked wound at the L upper
leg 2 inches in diameter.
On the other hand, appellant Eliseo denies the accusation against him and
interposed the defense of alibi. He claims that on
On
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Eliseo Bi-ay, Jr. alias “Gideon”
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged qualified by
treachery and hereby sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Rodrigo Claro the amount of P50, 000.00
by reason of his death and to pay the costs.
It is ordered that said accused be immediately remitted to the National
Penitentiary.
Let this case be placed in the archives to be revived as soon as accused
Alex Lingasa is apprehended.
The case against accused Jorge Bi-ay who is already deceased is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Aggrieved, Eliseo appealed the RTC
Decision to the CA assigning this lone error:
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY AS PRINCIPAL IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED WHEN HE IS ONLY LIABLE AS AN ACCOMPLICE.
The
CA noted that Eliseo raised the defense of denial and alibi during the trial of
the case at the RTC but, on appeal, he argued that he could only be liable as
an accomplice, and not as a principal.
In his Brief,[6] Eliseo
assailed the RTC for finding him guilty
as principal by direct participation in the commission of the crime of murder
against the victim. He claimed that the
prosecution failed to show clear proof that he conspired with his co-accused in
the killing of the victim. His alleged cooperation in the assault on the victim
was not indispensable, thus, he could only be held liable as an accomplice.
Moreover, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was doubtful because of the
glaring inconsistencies and lapses in their narration of their version of the incident.
On the other hand, the
prosecution counters that the role of the accused as principal by direct
participation in the execution of the crime was clearly established. Moreover,
the questioned discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’
testimonies are minor and trivial.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered
the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 6th
Judicial Region, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, in Criminal
Case No. 97-1893, finding accused-appellant Eliseo-Biay, Jr. y Sarintas alias
“Gideon,” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
Appellant is hereby directed to pay the heirs of Rodrigo Claro the amounts of P50,000.00
as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in addition to the P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
awarded by the trial court.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Hence, this petition raising this lone
ISSUE
The accused argues that the facts established by the prosecution failed
to show the existence of conspiracy in the killing of the victim. It was rather
proven that he did not have any direct participation in the slaying because his
initial hacking of the victim did not mortally wound him. The victim died after
he was fatally stabbed in the back by his co-accused. Hence, he can only be
liable as an accomplice because his participation was not indispensable compared
with those of his co-accused.
Moreover, the accused
claims that Francisco Claro (Francisco), testified on direct examination
that he saw all the accused hacking his son. On cross-examination, however, his
testimony was to the effect that he saw the other assailants fleeing away from
the scene of the crime and the accused was the only one holding a weapon and
stabbing the victim.
The Court finds no merit
in the appeal.
It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the assessment of the credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and
note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[8] The trial court has the
singular opportunity to observe the witnesses “through the different indicators
of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion
or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant
answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the
blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or
sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sign, the candor or lack
of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage
and mien.”[9]
This
rule admits of exceptions, however, such as when the trial court’s findings of
facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or when
certain facts of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case have
been overlooked by the lower court, or when the assailed decision is based on a
misapprehension of facts.[10]
In
the case at bench, the Court has not come across any misapprehension of facts.
The prosecution witnesses, Francisco and Baby Boy Claro (Baby Boy), saw with
their own eyes the brutal killing of the victim. The Court finds no indication that either
Francisco or Baby Boy was lying.
Thus,
in the absence of any of these exceptions warranting the reversal of the
decisions of the courts below, the general rule applies. In addition, the Court notes that the trial
court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court which, therefore,
makes said findings generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.
Strangely, the accused interposed inconsistent defenses, as noted by the
CA. In the RTC, he claimed denial and
alibi. On appeal, he put up the defense
that his participation in the murder was merely that of an accomplice instead
of that of a principal by direct participation. Clearly, his change of defense
strategy rendered his defense impotent.
Indeed, the accused is guilty as principal by direct participation. By his own admission, he delivered the first
blow on the unwary victim. He initiated the deadly assault by hacking the
hapless victim on the nape, causing the latter to immediately lose his balance
and fall to the ground. Right after his initial attack, his co-accused rushed
towards the poor and helpless victim and stabbed him several times in the back
until he died. As confirmed by the autopsy report of Dr. Lorna V. Transmontero,
the Municipal Health Officer of Cauayan, Negros Occidental, the victim died of
multiple stab wounds inflicted on several parts of his body.
Considering the above circumstances, the Court cannot hold the accused liable
as a mere accomplice because his active and direct involvement in the brutal
killing of the victim was too obvious.
For said reason, it is not even important to find out if conspiracy
attended the commission of the crime. The conviction of the accused was not
because of any conspiracy. He was convicted because he was positively
identified by the eyewitnesses, Francisco and Baby Boy, as one of the assailants
who actively and directly participated in the killing of Rodrigo Claro.
At any rate, the records clearly
prove that there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime. Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in concert at
the time of the commission of the offense, and it was shown by such acts that
they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its execution,
conspiracy is sufficiently established.[11]
In the case at bench, the initial hacking by the accused followed by the
multiple stabbing by his co-accused proves that they acted in concert at the
time of the brutal killing. The fact that each one of them carried a deadly
bladed weapon shows that they acted pursuant to the singular purpose of killing
the victim. It is not important who
delivered the fatal blow. In conspiracy, it matters
not who among the accused actually killed the victim. The act of one is the act of all. Each of the
accused is equally guilty of the crime committed.[12]
On the alleged inconsistency or discrepancy in the testimony of Francisco, the
Court finds none. The alleged
inconsistency is more apparent than real.
As pointed out by the CA, what he meant was that while he was still
approaching them, he witnessed the accused ganging up on his son. When he was already there, he saw the accused
continuously stabbing him while his companions were running away. Thus the Court considers innocuous
whatever discrepancies there were in the testimony of
Francisco.
Truth-telling witnesses are not expected to give flawless testimonies,
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. The Court has stated time and again that
minor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not
detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimonies on the
whole are coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the
witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed.[13] Instead, they may even
serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their
testimonies have been fabricated or rehearsed.
WHEREFORE, the July 16, 2009 Decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-19. Penned by Associate Justice Florito
S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and Associate
Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 17-23.
[3] Rollo, p. 5.
[4]
[5] CA rollo, p. 23.
[6] Rollo, pp. 62-73.
[7]
[8]
People of the
[9] People
of the
[10] People of
the
[11]
[12] People v. Glino, G.R. No. 173793, December 4,
2007,539 SCRA 432, 455.
[13] People
v. Jose de la Cruz, 452 Phil. 1080, 1095 (2003).